Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	aaron_n	call_v	name_n	22	3	4.0849	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92147	A treatise of civil policy: being a resolution of forty three questions concerning prerogative, right and priviledge, in reference to the supream prince and the people. / By Samuel Rutherford professor of divintiy of St Andrews in Scotland.	Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.	1656 (1656)	Wing R2396; Thomason E871_1; ESTC R207911	452,285	479

bondage Exod. 2. 23 24. and they were not to serve the Gods of Egypt nor were of the Kings Religion And therefore his Argument is thus A number of poore exiled strangers under King Pharaoh who were not Pharaohs Princes and Peeres could not restraine the Tyrannie of King Pharaoh Ergo the three Estates in a free Kingdome may not restraine the Arbitrarie power of a King 2. The Prelate must prove that God gave a Royall and Kingly power to King Pharaoh due to him by vertue of his Kingly calling according as Royalists expone 1 Sam. 8. 9 11. to kill all the male children of Israel to make slaves of themselves and compell them to worke in brick and clay while their lives were a burden to them And that if a Romish Catholique Mary of England should kill all the male Children of Protestants by the hands of Papists at the Queenes commandement and make bondslaves of all the Peeres Iudges and three Estates who made her a free Princesse yet notwithstanding that Mary had sworne to maintaine the Protestant Religion they were to suffer and not to defend themselves But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Israel so as they could not controll it then God giveth to a King a Royall power by office to sinne only the Royalist saveth God from being the author of sinne in this that God gave the power to sinne but yet with this limitation that the Subjects should not resist this power 2. He must prove that Israel was to give their Male-children to Pharaohs Butchers for to hide them was to resist a Royall power and to disobey a Royall power given of God is to disobey God 3. The Subjects may not resist the Kings Butchers coming to kill them and their Male-children For to resist the servant of the King in that wherein he is a servant is to resist the King 1 Sam. 8. 7. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Rom. 13. 1. 4. He must prove that upon the supposition That Israel had been as strong as Pharaoh and his people that without Gods speciall commandment they then wanting the written Word they should have sought with Pharaoh and that we now for all wars must have a word from Heaven as if we had not Gods perfit Will in his Word as at that time Israel behoved to have in all wars Judg. 18. 5. 1 Sam. 14. 37. Esa 30. 2. Iere. 38. 37. 1 King 22. 5. 1 Sam. 30. 5. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 23. 2. 2 Sam. 16. 23. 1 Chron. 10. 14. But because God gave not them an answer to fight against Pharaoh therefore we have no warrant now to fight against a forraign Nation invading us the consequence is null and therefore this is a vain Argument The Prophets never reprove the people for not performing the duty of defensive wars against Tyrannous Kings Ergo There is no such dutie enjoyned by any Law of God to us For the Prophets never rebuke the people for non-performing the dutie of offensive wars against their enemies but where God gave a speciall command and responce from his own Oracle that they should fight And if God was pleased never to command the people to rise against a Tyrannous King they did not sin where they had no commandment of God but I hope we have now a more sure word of prophecie to inform us 5. The Prelate conjectureth Moses his miraeles and the deliverance of the people by dividing the Red Sea was to forbid and condemn defensive wars of people against their King but he hath neither Scripture nor Reasons to do it The end of these miracles was to Seal to Pharaoh the Truth of Gods calling of Moses and Aaron to deliver the people as is clear Exod. 4. 1 2 3 4. compared with Chap. 7. vers 8 9 10. And that the Lord might get to himself a name on all the earth Rom. 9 17. Exod. 9. 16. and 13. 13 14. and 15. 1 2 3. seq But of the Prelates conjecturall end the Scripture is silent and we cannot take an excommunicated mans word What I said of Pharaoh who had no●●is Crown from Israel that I say of Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of Persia keeping the people of God captive P. Prelate So in the Book of the Judges when the people were delivered over to the hand of their enemies because of their sins he never warranted the ordinary Iudges or Communitie to be their own deliverers but when they repented God raised up a Iudge The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon God effected it by Cyrus immediately and totally Is not this a reall proof God will not have inferiour Iudges to rectifie what is amisse but we must waite in patience till God provide lawfull means some Soveraign power immediately sent by himself in which course of his ordinary providence he will not be deficient Answ All this is beside the question and proveth nothing lesse then that Peers and Communitie may not resume their power to curbe an Arbitrary power For in the first case there is neither Arbitrary nor lawfull supreme Iudge 2. If the first prove any thing it proveth That it was rebellion in the inferiour Iudges and Communitie of Israel to fight against forraign Kings not set over them by God and that offensive wars against any Kings whatsoever because they are Kings though strangers are unlawfull Let Socinians and Anabaptists consider if the P. Prelate help not them in this and may prove all wars to be unlawfull 3. He is so Malignant to all inferiour Iudges as if they were not powers sent of God and to all Governours that are not Kings and so upholders of Prelates and of himself as he conceiveth that by his arguing he will have all deliverance by Kings onely the onely lawfull means in ordinary providen●● and so Aristocracy and Democracy except in Gods extraordinary providence and by some divine dispensation must be extraordinary and ordinarily unlawfull 2. The Acts of a State when a King is dead and they choose another shall be an Anticipating of Gods providence 3. If the King be a childe a captive or distracted and the Kingdom oppressed with Malignants they are to waite while God immediately from Heaven create a King to them as he did Saul long ago But have we now Kings immediately sent as Saul was 1. How is the spirit of Prophecie and Government infused in them as in King Saul Or are they by propheticall inspiration anointed as David was I conceive their calling to the throne on Gods part do differ as much from the calling of Saul and David in some respect as the calling of ordinary Pastors who must be gifted by industry and learning and called by the Church and the calling of Apostles 4. God would deliver his people from Babylon by moving the heart of Cyrus immediately the people having no hand in it not so much as supplicating Cyrus Ergo The People and Peers who made the King cannot curb his

18. 4 5 6 7. 2. They may prove that people sought by a Tyrant to be crucifyed for the Cause of God or to reveale and discover themselves to an Armie of men who come to seek them Ioh. 13. 1 2. Ioh. 18. 4 5 6 7. 3. That Martyrs are of purpose to goe to the place where they know they shall be apprehended and put to death for this Christ did and are willingly to offer themselves to the enemies Armie for so did Christ Ioh. 14. 3. Mar. 14. 41 42. Mat. 26. 46 47. and so by his example all the Parliament all the Innocents of the Citie of London and Assemblie of Divines are obliged to lay downe Armes and to goe to their owne death to Prince Rupert and the bloody Irish Rebels 4. By this example it is unlawfull to resist the cut-throats of a King for Cesar in his owne Royall person the High Priest in person came not out against Christ Yea it is not lawfull for the Parliament to resist a Iudas who hath fled as a traiterous Apostate from the Truth and the Temple of Christ 5. It is not lawful for innocents to defend themselves by any violence against the invasion of superiours in D. Fernes three cases in which he alloweth resistance 1. When the Invasion is sudden 2. Vnavoidable 3. Without all colour of Law and Reason In the two last cases Royalists defend the lawfulnes of self-defence 6. If the example be pressed Christ did not this and this he resisted not with violence to save his owne life therefore we are to abstaine from resistance and such and such meanes of self-preservation then because Christ appealed not from inferiour Judges to the Emperour Caesar who no doubt would have shewne him more favour then the Scribes and Pharisees did and because Christ conveyed not a humble supplication to his Soveraigne and Father Caesar then because he proffered not a humble petition to Prince Pilate for his life he being an innocent man and his cause just because he neither conduced an Orator to pleade his owne just cause nor did he so plead for himselfe and give in word and writ all lawfull and possible defences for his own safety but answered many things with silence to the admiration of the Judge Marke 15. 3 4. 5. and was thrice pronounced by the Judge to be innocent Luke 22. ver 23. because I say Christ did not all these for his owne life therefore it is unlawfull for Scotland and England to appeale to the King to supplicate to give in Appologi●s c. I thinke Royalists dare not say so But if they say he would not resist and yet might have done all these lawfully because these be lawfull meanes and resistance with the sword unlawfull because He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword Let me Answer then 1. They leave the argument from Christs example who was thus farre subject to higher powers that he would not resist and plead from the unlawfulnesse of resistance this is petitio principii 2. He that taketh the sword without Gods warrant which Peter had not but the contrary he was himselfe a Sathan to Christ who would but councell him not to die but there is no shadow of a word to prove that violent resisting is unlawfull when the King and his Irish cut-throats pursue us unjustly onely Christ saith when God may deliver extraordinarily by his Angels except it be his absolute will that his Son should drink the cup of death then to take the sword when God hath declared his will on the contrary is unlawfull and that is all Though I doe not question but Christs asking for swords and his arresting all his enemies to the ground Ioh. 18. 6. backward is a justifying of selfe-defence But hit herto it is cleare by Christs example that he onely was commanded to suffer Now the second case in which suffering falleth under a Commandement is indirectly and comparatively when it commeth to the election of the witnesse of Jesus that it is referred to them either to deny the truth of Christ and his name or then to suffer death the choise is apparently evident and this choise that persecuters referre us unto is to us a Commandement of God that we must choose suffering for Christ and refuse sinning against Christ but the supposition must stand that this alternative is unavoydable that is not in our power to decline either suffering for Christ or denying of Christ before men otherwayes no man is to expect the reward of a witnesse of Iesus who having a lawfull possible meanes of eschewing suffering doth yet cast himselfe into suffering needlesly But I prove that suffering by men of this world falleth not formally and directly under any divine positive Law for the Law of nature what ever Arminians in their Declaration or this Arminian excommunicate think with them for they teach that God gave a Commandement to Adam to abstaine from such and such fruit with paine and trouble to sinlesse nature doth not command suffering or any thing contrary to nature as nature is sinlesse I prove it thus 1. What ever falleth under a positive Commandement of God I may say here under any Commandement of God is not a thing under the free will and power of others from whom we are not discended necessarily by naturall generation but that men of the world kill me even these from whom I am not discended by naturall generation which I speake to exclude Adam who killed all his posterity is not in my free will either as if they had my common nature in that act or as if I were accessory by counsell consent or approbation to that act for this is under the free-will and power of others not under my owne free-will Ergo that I suffer by others is not under my free-will and cannot fall under a Commandement of God And certainly it is an irrationall Law glorified be his name that God should command Antipas either formally to suffer or formally not to suffer death by these of the Synagogue of Sathan Revel 2. 13. because if they be pleased not to kill him it is not in his free-will to be killed by them and if they shall have him in their power except God extraordinarily deliver it is not in his power in an ordinary providence not to be killed 2. All these places of Gods word that recommendeth suffering to the followers of Christ do not command formally that we suffer Ergo suffering falleth not formally under any Commandement of God I prove the Antecedent because if they be considered they prove only that comparatively we are to choose rather to suffer then to deny Christ before men Mat. 10 28 32. Revel 2. 13. Mat. 10. 37. Mat. 16. 24. c. 19. 29. or then they command not suffering according to the substance of the passion but according to the manner that we suffer willingly cheerfully and patiently Hence Christs word to take up his Crosse